Author
Topic: If American Orthodoxy followed the rules for jurisdiction... (Read 2298 times)

Probably been covered here, and I know it's not a big deal in Orthodoxy, so the patchwork of ethnic jurisdictions since the Russian Revolution will go on indefinitely, but...

Since the Russians were here first, the OCA's the canonical Orthodox church. (The old Russian metropolia from before the revolution.) Most parishes would be Greek, since most American Orthodox are Greek, but under the OCA with everybody else. Probably unworkable at least because of different languages, reinforced by immigration, but it makes sense on paper.

Probably been covered here, and I know it's not a big deal in Orthodoxy, so the patchwork of ethnic jurisdictions since the Russian Revolution will go on indefinitely, but...

Since the Russians were here first, the OCA's the canonical Orthodox church. (The old Russian metropolia from before the revolution.) Most parishes would be Greek, since most American Orthodox are Greek, but under the OCA with everybody else. Probably unworkable at least because of different languages, reinforced by immigration, but it makes sense on paper.

Aren't you Catholic or something? IIRC there are restrictions on posting in this section for non-Orthodox forumers.

I just saw it's in the Convert Issues folder. I meant to put it in the Faith Issues one. Sorry. Being Catholic or something is nothing to do with the topic.

I have reviewed the post and find that it meets the standard for discussion within the Convert Issues Forum as no proselytization is evident in the topic and it is about orthodoxy. Old Fogey's topic is permitted. Thomas Convert Issues Forum Moderator.

I just saw it's in the Convert Issues folder. I meant to put it in the Faith Issues one. Sorry. Being Catholic or something is nothing to do with the topic.

it has everything to do with the topic, being Catholic and in communion with the Orthodox diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as the OCA, the Greek Archdiocese and everybody else in ACOBNCA are.

Just, was there a question in the OP? Not sure it belongs in the Faith Issues either.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 11:36:05 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It's not off-topic in the forum; it's all about Orthodoxy. The implied questions: would uniting American Orthodox in one jurisdiction, strictly following Orthodoxy's rule on that, be possible or desirable, and if it's possible, what would it look like?

If all Orthodox Christians were put into the Orthodox Church in America (which of course would be incredibly difficult, I'm not saying otherwise), could we not have more of the ethnic diocese under the OCA currently? I mean, currently, there's an Albanian Diocese, a Bulgarian Diocese, and a Romanian Diocese; that doesn't look too shabby to me.

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

It seems like it's something that will be dealt with incrementally. From what I've heard the first step they are looking to take is about trying to work out the problem of overlapping/multiple bishops. Fifty or so Orthodox bishops, covering a country the size of the US, and about a million people, is not an unwieldy number to work with. The problem seems to be that 49 of those bishops are in Queens. Anyway, the being-planned-for-fifty-years council is supposed to tackle this issue, but it seems like a lot of progress before that will happen, and a lot of work afterwards. All slowly and over the course of generations, not years.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2013, 11:58:08 PM by Asteriktos »

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

I would guess it's to preserve the various liturgical languages if I had to guess, but of course there are slight differences between the Greek and Slavonic liturgies, too. I wish we could find someone here from either of those ethnic dioceses to explain why they were created and how they work. Said person could answer any and all questions better than I could.

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

Ecclesiastical security blankets.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My guess is it depends on whether there are enough born American Orthodox, ethnic third, etc. generation and a few converts, to make such an American church work, or if American Orthodoxy will remain mostly immigrant and second-generation and keep slowly shrinking. Note I'm not saying erase ethnic culture. Ethnic parishes are a given.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Probably been covered here, and I know it's not a big deal in Orthodoxy, so the patchwork of ethnic jurisdictions since the Russian Revolution will go on indefinitely, but...

Since the Russians were here first, the OCA's the canonical Orthodox church. (The old Russian metropolia from before the revolution.) Most parishes would be Greek, since most American Orthodox are Greek, but under the OCA with everybody else. Probably unworkable at least because of different languages, reinforced by immigration, but it makes sense on paper.

I think an administratively united Eastern Orthodox Christian Church of North America could be implemented promptly, over the ensuing 5 to 10 years. The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishop can draw diocesan boundaries and reposition the bishops throughout the continent (Fr. George once designed such a plan based on demographics of the existing population of Orthodox Christians somewhere on this forum), but establish guarantees that would not affect the practices within each of the parishes, i.e. typicon, liturgical language, etc. Guarantees of continued support of the various mother churches would also have to be maintained and perhaps enhanced. ACOB should prepare such a plan (that is their charge from the Holy Orthodox Churches) and should immediately begin the process of promoting the appropriateness and benefits of this new structure for the church throughout the continent. Committees should meet to decide the administrative regulations for the operations under this the new structure and should be immediately promote regional and local pan-Orthodox activities, joint services, educational, youth, and all of the various ministries of the church, utilizing the local clergy fellowships where feasible, to get the faithful accustomed to the revised administrative structure.

Probably been covered here, and I know it's not a big deal in Orthodoxy, so the patchwork of ethnic jurisdictions since the Russian Revolution will go on indefinitely, but...

Since the Russians were here first, the OCA's the canonical Orthodox church. (The old Russian metropolia from before the revolution.) Most parishes would be Greek, since most American Orthodox are Greek, but under the OCA with everybody else. Probably unworkable at least because of different languages, reinforced by immigration, but it makes sense on paper.

I think an administratively united Eastern Orthodox Christian Church of North America could be implemented promptly, over the ensuing 5 to 10 years.

The people involved seem much less optimistic, at least from what I remember of the people speaking in the "Unraveling Chambesy - Administrative Unity In Our Time" thing who are officially working on this (link)

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

From everything that I've heard, it *seems* that the goal is to have a non-ethnic bishopric, i.e., a bishop of, say, Phoenix, Arizona, or Chicago, Illinois, overseeing whatever parishes happen to be within his territorial jurisdiction, whether they be Greek, or Ukrainian, or Serbian, or whatever. The parishes would worship according to their "t"raditions, and there is likely to be some blending of these traditions over time as priests are assigned across these parishes. Or so I gathered from listening to a recent podcast on Ancient Faith Radio.

But the committee is still trying to figure out the best way to proceed and, of course, any proposal has to meet with the approval of the existing jurisdictions as well as the hierarchs back in the old country. The gentleman who was talking on this particular podcast, however, said that it is imperative that it occur within our lifetimes and he talked as if major progress might be made within the next five years.

The OCA can make claims that they were started by St. Herman of Alaska. However St. Herman was from Valaam, which is Moscow Patriarchate, there are still MC parishes in America.

Also, remember that it's Orthodox Church IN America, not OF America. A lot of people think OCA is American Orthodoxy and that's inaccurate, there is not American Orthodoxy yet.

Ready or not, it's here.

The Holy Hierarch Michael was from Constantinople, and the Phanar still has parishes in the Patriarchate of Moscow (remember Estonia?)-is Moscow still part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Read the agreement for Autocephaly and the Tomos that Moscow issued:

Quote

Article I - Declaration of Autocephaly

As the result of the agreement, hereinafter set forth, between the Patriarchate and the Metropolia, the Metropolia, as a branch of the Russian Orthodox Church (in 1793 – Orthodox Mission, in 1858 – Vicariate on the Sitka Island, in 1870 – the Aleutian and American Diocese, in 1900 – the Aleutian and North American Diocese, in 1907 – “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America in the hierarchical jurisdiction of the Russian Church”) shall be declared an Autocephalous Church and shall have as its name “The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.”

Quote

For a number of years, the Russian Orthodox Church has observed with maternal love and concern the development of the Orthodox Church which she planted on the American continent. In the last few decades she has sorrowfully witnessed the unfortunate appearance there of a pluralism of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, a temporary phenomenon, and by no means a permanent norm of the canonical organization of the Orthodox Church in America, since it is contrary to the nature of Orthodox canonical ecclesiastical unity.

The Holy Russian Orthodox Church, striving for the good of the Church, has directed her efforts toward the normalization of relations among the various ecclesiastical jurisdictions in America, particularly by negotiating with the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, concerning the possibility of granting autocephaly to this Church in the hope that this might serve the good of the Orthodox Church in America and the glory of God.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

From everything that I've heard, it *seems* that the goal is to have a non-ethnic bishopric, i.e., a bishop of, say, Phoenix, Arizona, or Chicago, Illinois, overseeing whatever parishes happen to be within his territorial jurisdiction, whether they be Greek, or Ukrainian, or Serbian, or whatever. The parishes would worship according to their "t"raditions, and there is likely to be some blending of these traditions over time as priests are assigned across these parishes. Or so I gathered from listening to a recent podcast on Ancient Faith Radio.

But the committee is still trying to figure out the best way to proceed and, of course, any proposal has to meet with the approval of the existing jurisdictions as well as the hierarchs back in the old country. The gentleman who was talking on this particular podcast, however, said that it is imperative that it occur within our lifetimes and he talked as if major progress might be made within the next five years.

I guess we'll see what happens.

Yeah, Fr. Arey. The problem is he had the thankless job of trying to put successively a honest and then brave face on the Assembly, as can be seen if you look at the evolution of his statements on the OCA.

His boss the Phanar cooled its jets once the OCA was seated (thanks to Abp. Demetrios-Many Years!) and it became clear that the Episcopal Assemblies in general and in particular the real test case-the one in North America-were not going to implement the canon 28 myth. I understand that the Phanar issued the decision on splitting Canada off from the Assembly, as its most simpatico hierarch Met. Sotirios announced, but no other signatory to Chambesy has signed off on it.

No matter, things are moving ahead, in spite of the Phanar.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The OCA can make claims that they were started by St. Herman of Alaska. However St. Herman was from Valaam, which is Moscow Patriarchate, there are still MP parishes in America.

The OCA is the old Russian dioceses in America, the metropolia, from before the Russian Revolution, and as the tomos granting autocephaly in 1970 shows, it's the successor to the Russian church here.

The reason some Russian parishes in America are MP instead is a relic from the Cold War. Right after WWII the Soviets sent a bishop to America and told the Russian churches to go under them. Most said no but a few parishes did. Caused hard feelings and lawsuits between the metropolia and those parishes for years. The tomos was at the same time as political détente with the Soviets; it exempted the MP parishes, naming each of them, from joining the new OCA.

Global Communism's gone. Makes sense to normalize jurisdiction now.

Right, territorial dioceses but American parishes with their respective ethnic heritages, and a few parishes primarily for immigrants in their languages? The thing is, is American Orthodoxy American enough now to pull that off? Will it be?

The Slavs originally under the Russians have the claim on American Orthodoxy but most American Orthodox are Greek and want to remain jurisdictionally so. If you can integrate the Greek majority into the smaller Slavic church, you'd have an American Orthodox church with normal dioceses.

American Lutheranism's ethnic too and used to be a patchwork of immigrant, mostly Scandinavian, jurisdictions. Most have merged into ELCA (which is mainline liberal but that's not the point here), with the large, non-mainline, conservative German Missouri Synod and the smaller, very conservative Wisconsin Synod remaining separate.

So I can see the big, relatively Americanized, Gregorian-calendar American Orthodox churches (OCA, Greeks, and Antioch) coming together, with groups like the Old Calendar Greeks remaining separate like the Missouri Synod.

Well with the grace of our Lord and Savor, it won't matter in the years to come. Thanks to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodoxy Bishop in North and Central America who are working to make a united American Orthodoxy. It'll be a lot of little "t" traditions to work out but I think it's what's best for this country so we can stop fighting over jurisdictions and love each other and worship our Lord together.

Well with the grace of our Lord and Savor, it won't matter in the years to come. Thanks to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodoxy Bishop in North and Central America who are working to make a united American Orthodoxy. It'll be a lot of little "t" traditions to work out but I think it's what's best for this country so we can stop fighting over jurisdictions and love each other and worship our Lord together.

Well with the grace of our Lord and Savor, it won't matter in the years to come. Thanks to the Assembly of Canonical Orthodoxy Bishop in North and Central America who are working to make a united American Orthodoxy. It'll be a lot of little "t" traditions to work out but I think it's what's best for this country so we can stop fighting over jurisdictions and love each other and worship our Lord together.

I agree totally with Peacemaker, and would add that it's so sad to have so many jurisdictions, especially since (in many cases) we're all Americans. I go to an OCA Church that is a block away from a Greek Orthodox Church. There are about three immigrants between the two Churches. We have two different bishops come, and there is a feeling that we are competing somehow.

I miss Church one Sunday and people say to me "where were you - with those Greeks?!"

"One Bishop per city or region is what the canons call for. Yet, here in North America we have multiple Bishops in one location. The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops are working to correct that and today we speak with Proto-Deacon Peter Danilchick who is the liaison for the Canonical Regional Planning Committee. Learn about the importance of this task and how long it will take to get it done.

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

Ecclesiastical security blankets.

More to the point, still uncannonical - overlapping diocese within a jurisdiction is as uncanonical as overlapping diocese between jurisdictions. The fact that they don't have the same city in their titles is beyond the point: Archbishop NATHANIEL and Bishop (Whomever will be in Chicago + Midwest) both claim Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, for example, since each has parishes in each city.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Since the Russians were here first, the OCA's the canonical Orthodox church.

So because they were in Alaska but nowhere else, they claim the whole continent? NOLA would disagree strenuously...

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

Ecclesiastical security blankets.

More to the point, still uncannonical - overlapping diocese within a jurisdiction is as uncanonical as overlapping diocese between jurisdictions. The fact that they don't have the same city in their titles is beyond the point: Archbishop NATHANIEL and Bishop (Whomever will be in Chicago + Midwest) both claim Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, for example, since each has parishes in each city.

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

Ecclesiastical security blankets.

More to the point, still uncannonical - overlapping diocese within a jurisdiction is as uncanonical as overlapping diocese between jurisdictions. The fact that they don't have the same city in their titles is beyond the point: Archbishop NATHANIEL and Bishop (Whomever will be in Chicago + Midwest) both claim Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, for example, since each has parishes in each city.

Doesn't the EP has 4 overlapping dioceses in the USA?

Yes, New Rome is vying with Old Rome in piling Churches under its jurisdiction on top of one another.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

Ecclesiastical security blankets.

More to the point, still uncannonical - overlapping diocese within a jurisdiction is as uncanonical as overlapping diocese between jurisdictions. The fact that they don't have the same city in their titles is beyond the point: Archbishop NATHANIEL and Bishop (Whomever will be in Chicago + Midwest) both claim Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, for example, since each has parishes in each city.

Since the Russians were here first, the OCA's the canonical Orthodox church.

So because they were in Alaska but nowhere else, they claim the whole continent? NOLA would disagree strenuously...

NOLA?

New Orleans, Lousiania, i.e. Holy Trinity Cathedral? If that, Father-nice parish, but it has no room to complain.

Even if they were in Alaska "but nowhere else," that's more than anyone else. Fact is, the Russian connection started in colonial Virginia, where Philip Ludwell III, having been received by the Chapel of the Russian Embassy in London in 1738, returned home (with the blessing of the Holy Synod for translating the Orthodox Confession of Met. St. Peter Movila/Mogilas and the Divine Liturgy of St. John)-his grandfather Philip I had served as the first governor of the Carolinas, his father as 24th Speaker of the Virginia House of Burgess, President of the Viriginia Council and rector of William and Mary College. His mother was buried in the churchyard of the church in the old capital of Jamestown, his grandfather Philip I and his brother Thomas being responsible for bringing the capital to Williamsburg, near their plantations. In return the town named it church Bruton, after their hometown in England.As for Philip Ludwell III, he gave George Washington his original military commission and brought over Thomas Jefferson's face in law as a lad. He built his house across the road going to the governor's palace from the Bruton parish, on the main street of "The Duke of Glouchester" which ran to the House of Burgess.Philip also had the blessing to take the Eucharist from the London Chapel to his home in VA, where he raised his daughters Orthodox. From there his translation of the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern-Church" was finished and published in 1762http://orthodoxhistory.org/2013/06/25/an-unexpected-discovery-concerning-philip-ludwell-iii/Ludwell changing the family crest from single headed eagles to double headed onesThe home passed to his daughter Lucy, also Orthdoox, who married John Paradise, another Orthodox Englishman-but Greek, he was born of a half-Greek mother in Thessalonica, where his Orthodox English father served as British consul: John Paradise taught Ancient Greek to Thomas Jefferson. When the War of American Independence broke out, Lucy was abroad with her husband in Europe, and their home in Williamsburg was seized. The Ludwells, however, were well acquainted with Benjamin Franklin (Philip III has commissioned Franklin's favorite portrait of himself), who came to Paris to seek aid for the Revolutionaries. There, as plenipotentiary of the United Stated of America, he swore John Paradise as a citizen-perhaps the first US naturalization, in October 1780. But John also retained links to England-he was close friends with Frederick North (who had been secretly baptized Orthodox in Corfu), son of the British Prime Minister. Both would later work as lobbyist for Russian interests.John passed away and in her widowhood Lucy wrote Jefferson, now in his second term in the White House (Aug 27, 1805), in reply to his inquiry on her health “With the blessing of God I am now in good health, and with my priest’s blessing and command who is the Rev. Mr. Smirnov" the priest of the Russian Embassy Chapel in London. She passed away, evidently still in the Faith, 9 years later in Virginia.

By then the Russians had already extended their mission from Alaska down into California and set up Fort Ross, dedicating it on Czar Alexander I's names day September 10th, 1812. The reader's services culminate in 1825 in the sailors setting up the Fort's Chapel.besides bringing converted Aleuts, they began to convert the local Kashaya and other Amerindians. They also had Hawaiians in the early years-the Russians having built a two chapels in Hawaii, closed by Calvinist missionaries in 1820 (a tiny embassy chapel was built in 1882 in Honolulu). Besides being served by naval chaplains-the officers of the Russian American Company had to be naval men-it was served by the Alaskan mission, e.g. Fr. Ioan Venianimov-later Met. St. Innocent of Alaska, who visited it and the Mexican California missions in 1836. When the Company decided to close down the colony-by then covering an area the size of Delaware-in 1840, Fr. Ioan, then taking vows to be consecrated bishop of the See of New Archangel/Sitka, bemoaned the withdrawal and had the Holy Synod evaculate all the Amerindian Orthodox. Over half a century later [St.] Sebastian Dabovich, the first European native born American archimandrite and priest-he was born in 18 as his immigrating parents were entering San Francisco Bay-noted meeting the California Kashaya and Miwok Orthodox in Sitka. The Governor Kostromitinov, now Russian Government agent, moved to San Franciso where the Russian American Company moved its headquarters for CA. At his apartment, navel chaplains came and baptized the Russian, Greek and Serb children there and celebrated Divine Liturgy. In 1863 the Russian navy lay anchor in San Francisco and New York and stayed an entire year touring, as support to the Union during the War Between the States. The chaplain on the battleship in New York, who the newspapers recorded as baptizing children, later came back as bishop of Alaska and the Aleutians with his cathedral in San Francisco after the Alaskan purchase. One ship passed through New Orleans, once the Union forces took it. In San Francisco, celebrating Pascha with the Russian Admiral, Kostromitinov and other local Orthodox thereafter formed an Orthodox Society in San Francisco. It included not only the remnants of Fort Ross in San Francisco, but also new arrivals-like George Fisher, a Serb who had served the Republic of Texas and had settled in San Francisco as the Consul of the Kingdom of Greece-all served by the Russian naval chaplains.

It is only then that New Orleans enters the picture. There another Greek Consul, Nicholas Benachi, had been trying to organize a parish since 1860. Word got out through the returning Russian Fleet to a Agapius Honcharenko, a hierodeacon of the Kievan Caves attached to the Russian embassy chapel in Athens, who made his way without canonical leave nor ordination to America, passing himself off as a priest. Through private and Episcopalian channels, Benachi hosted Honcharenko in New Orleans. Honcharenko, however went on to San Francisco, as Fr. Kovrigin, the resident priest in San Francisco, reported back to Bishop Paul in Sitka in 1868:

Quote

About the presbyter Agapius Honcharenko. When I arrived to S.-Francisco, Mister Consul warned me to not allow myself to receive him and not to talk to him. In the evening, ... a man of small stature with a black beard came to my apartment and ordered me to give him vestments and the antimension, and [to cease?] a campaign to establish a newspaper. As I was already warned, I told him that I could not have anything to do with him and asked him to leave me alone. He left my apartment very angrily, and then began to curse all around the city. He is a former monk and married to an Italian woman. The Slavs cannot stand him.

http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1868/03.00.Kovrigin-Paul.htmlUnlike Honcharenko, Fr. Kovrigin had an antimens and a bishop, and that bishop had been resident and serving in North America for the Russian Holy Synod for decades by then. In fact, when the Americans came to California and set up an Episcopal diocese with US annexation, they first thought of getting orders from the bishop in Sitka. With the Alaskan purchase, the Russians and Orthodox natives were, by terms of the treaty, US citizens and guaranteed ownership of the Church. Many came with the departing bishop on his way across the US to go back to Russia, not across the Pacific, as he came, but across North America and then the Atlantic, serving a Thanksgiving-in the American sense of the word-in New York before leaving. They settled in San Francisco, and within a few years the incoming bishop of Sitka followed them, settling in San Francisco in 1871. At the time there were plans to organize three episcopal sees in North America, in San Francisco, New Orleans (the Czar sending gifts to Holy Trinity in New Orleans, still treasured there, and his brother visiting) and New York. http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/10/30/three-bishops-for-america-in-1870/In New York, however, the Episcopalians complained-in CA!-about having two bishops in one city, they considering themselves as the "Western Orthodox Church,' as so a chapel instead was managed there. (New York law, however, still required that any Orthodox Church that incorporated name the Russian Consul and Plenipotentiary as members of the corporation). The reports of its priest, however, show that he was interacting with the rest of the country. The bishop would be translated from San Francisco to New York in 1900, and renamed the bishop of the Aleutians and North America, there celebrating the first consecration in the New World of a bishop in 1904. At that point, if not long before, per canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, claimed the whole continent (Canada recognizing his jurisdiction, as the US-Russian Alaskan Cession treaty did, on June 19, 1903).

Why should Alaska cede priority to New Orleans? After all, even if the New Orleans was all canonically in order, it would not be followed by another Greek Orthodox Church until 1898 in Chicago, and not a parish or Orthodox society of any sort until 1891.

« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 04:53:01 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In that sort of hypothetical situation, what would be the benefit of "ethnic" dioceses? Since everyone's using the Byzantine rite, would it not simply be a matter of learning some relevant rubrical differences? Or are there other legitimate pastoral reasons to retain ethnic dioceses?

Ecclesiastical security blankets.

More to the point, still uncannonical - overlapping diocese within a jurisdiction is as uncanonical as overlapping diocese between jurisdictions. The fact that they don't have the same city in their titles is beyond the point: Archbishop NATHANIEL and Bishop (Whomever will be in Chicago + Midwest) both claim Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit, for example, since each has parishes in each city.

No, Abp. claims-or rather has-Detroit, Father, and "whomever" in Chicago will have Chicago.

The "ethnic dioceses" do not differ radically from the canonical exceptions of stavropegial institutions, metochia and vicariates, but very much akin to the actual situation that Canon 28 of Chalcedon was dealing with "the bishops among the barbarians of the aforesaid dioceses," as Patriarch Alexei II of blessed memory wrote to EP Bartholomew a decade ago. Again.

Certainly more canonical than what the Phanar is developing, yet another imitation of Old Rome, which has not only four patriarchs of Antioch (or did-Vatican II abolished the Latin) but four whole overlapping patriarchates complete with phyletist diasporas, complete with bishops of dead dioceses in one patriarchate heading living ones of another's "diaspora." And then the biggest difference of all-by statute, the ethnic dioceses are exercises in economia, to be anchored in a territorial basis (hence Abp. Nathaniel having a see in Detroit) and intended to be conformed to it. I see no indication in the Phanar model that it ever intends to change it.

The Bucharest model has been dealt a blow by Jerusalem. Now we just have to cure Jerusalem of following it with a Phanariot flare. and deal that model a death blow.

« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 11:23:17 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Why should Alaska cede priority to New Orleans? After all, even if the New Orleans was all canonically in order, it would not be followed by another Greek Orthodox Church until 1898 in Chicago, and not a parish or Orthodox society of any sort until 1891.

I should add, it was preceded by several Greek communities who formed part of parishes under the Russian bishop, including the Cathedral in San Francisco when the bishop translated there in 1871.

« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 11:16:28 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Certainly more canonical than what the Phanar is developing, yet another imitation of Old Rome, which has not only four patriarchs of Antioch (or did-Vatican II abolished the Latin) but four whole overlapping patriarchates complete with phyletist diasporas, complete with bishops of dead dioceses in one patriarchate heading living ones of another's "diaspora."

You know quite well that the Latin Patriarchates in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were abolished as I have told you several times and you acknowledged in another thread. Not sure what the rest of that is about. The bishops of the Eastern Catholic diaspora are by great majority eparchial bishops with their own see. The only ones that have titular sees are those heading exarchates.

Certainly more canonical than what the Phanar is developing, yet another imitation of Old Rome, which has not only four patriarchs of Antioch (or did-Vatican II abolished the Latin) but four whole overlapping patriarchates complete with phyletist diasporas, complete with bishops of dead dioceses in one patriarchate heading living ones of another's "diaspora."

You know quite well that the Latin Patriarchates in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were abolished as I have told you several times and you acknowledged in another thread.

Not sure what the rest of that is about. The bishops of the Eastern Catholic diaspora are by great majority eparchial bishops with their own see. The only ones that have titular sees are those heading exarchates.

The reference was mostly to the live bishops of dead sees of the Phanar-although titular and abolished sees have ample opportunity and ability to make mischief. Witness the UGCC revival of its non-existent diocese of Kiev, and then moving its major archbishop there, foreshadowed by the Testament of his predecessor expressing his wish to be buried in the ancient Cathedral which never served as the see of his predecessors, save one and a disputed handfull, at most. Yet the present major archbishop-while demanding return of its alleged properties-speaks out against the return of the ancient Cathedral of St. Sophia to its rightful possessor, Met. Volodymyr of Kiev and All Ukraine, primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"One Bishop per city or region is what the canons call for. Yet, here in North America we have multiple Bishops in one location. The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops are working to correct that and today we speak with Proto-Deacon Peter Danilchick who is the liaison for the Canonical Regional Planning Committee. Learn about the importance of this task and how long it will take to get it done.

So I can see the big, relatively Americanized, Gregorian-calendar American Orthodox churches (OCA, Greeks, and Antioch) coming together, with groups like the Old Calendar Greeks remaining separate like the Missouri Synod.

Global communism is not gone, the bulk of it is regrouping or gone into hiding, but it is still there festering. I do agree on your assessment about what American Orthodox Churches will be consisting of, and that there will be smaller Old Calendar groups...I am attending an Old Calendar Russian parish.